4 ms·

> First off, we are huge fans of open source projects. For example, Kreya uses the open source scripting language Scriban. I really don't know how you overcome

> First off, we are huge fans of open source projects. For example, Kreya uses the open source scripting language Scriban. I really don't know how you overcome to cognitive dissonance to continue after this. Call me naive, but it's pretty scummy to take someone else's open source work, add some extra code, and slap a pricetag on it. Also doing that violates most copyleft licences.

cpach 5y ago
“Also doing that violates most copyleft licences.” Scriban isn’t copyleft though. https://github.com/scriban/scriban/blob/master/license.txt https://github.com/scriban/scriban/blob/master/license.txt
Pet_Ant 5y ago
Scriban is BSD so they knew what they were doing. It was always a possibilty, they made a choice. https://github.com/scriban/scriban/blob/master/license.txt https://github.com/scriban/scriban/blob/master/license.txt
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    If the scriban people didn't want that to happen, they could have used a license (e.g., GPL) that prohibits it. Some of us use BSD or MIT licenses precisely for that reason. I'm happy if someone uses my MIT-licensed code in a commercial product. That's why I chose that license. It's not "morally reprehensible" in any way.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    It's not "technically" legal, it's fully legal in every sense. And using someone's code for a purpose they explicitly allowed is about as far from morally reprehensible as it gets.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    If you don't want people to base closed source software on your work, then you shouldn't be granting them a license that explicitly permits them to do exactly that. AGPL is an option if that is what you want.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    The rules of the game are known at the start.
Turing_Machine 5y ago
Looks like scriban is BSD 2-Clause. It's perfectly fine to use it in commercial products.
Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
> Also doing that violates most copyleft licences. How would adding some extra code and slapping a price tag on it violate any copyleft license? Name a single one that forbids it.
- detaro 5y ago
  you are missing "... and not share the source code ..." in your question, which is clearly the context here.
  - Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
    If that’s the context, then what point is the statement trying to make? The addition of the code and the slapping of the price tag has no bearing whatsoever on copyleft compliance, and that you have to redistribute the source of the combined work along with the binary under a compatible license is just calling water wet.
    - hedora 5y ago
      You can do that, but you can't prevent the first person you sell it to from redistributing your additional code for free. This is basically Red Hat's business model, so making it work is possible, but they're effectively selling services, not software licences.
      - Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
        That's what "redistribute the source of the combined work along with the binary under a compatible license" means. Still calling water wet.

cpach 5y ago

“Also doing that violates most copyleft licences.” Scriban isn’t copyleft though. https://github.com/scriban/scriban/blob/master/license.txt https://github.com/scriban/scriban/blob/master/license.txt

Pet_Ant 5y ago

Scriban is BSD so they knew what they were doing. It was always a possibilty, they made a choice. https://github.com/scriban/scriban/blob/master/license.txt https://github.com/scriban/scriban/blob/master/license.txt

DocTomoe 5y ago
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  If the scriban people didn't want that to happen, they could have used a license (e.g., GPL) that prohibits it. Some of us use BSD or MIT licenses precisely for that reason. I'm happy if someone uses my MIT-licensed code in a commercial product. That's why I chose that license. It's not "morally reprehensible" in any way.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  It's not "technically" legal, it's fully legal in every sense. And using someone's code for a purpose they explicitly allowed is about as far from morally reprehensible as it gets.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  If you don't want people to base closed source software on your work, then you shouldn't be granting them a license that explicitly permits them to do exactly that. AGPL is an option if that is what you want.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  The rules of the game are known at the start.

Turing_Machine 5y ago

Looks like scriban is BSD 2-Clause. It's perfectly fine to use it in commercial products.

Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago

> Also doing that violates most copyleft licences. How would adding some extra code and slapping a price tag on it violate any copyleft license? Name a single one that forbids it.

detaro 5y ago
you are missing "... and not share the source code ..." in your question, which is clearly the context here.
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
  If that’s the context, then what point is the statement trying to make? The addition of the code and the slapping of the price tag has no bearing whatsoever on copyleft compliance, and that you have to redistribute the source of the combined work along with the binary under a compatible license is just calling water wet.
  - hedora 5y ago
    You can do that, but you can't prevent the first person you sell it to from redistributing your additional code for free. This is basically Red Hat's business model, so making it work is possible, but they're effectively selling services, not software licences.
    - Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
      That's what "redistribute the source of the combined work along with the binary under a compatible license" means. Still calling water wet.